State v. Newsted

"[E]vidence is sufficient to support a conviction for delivery where it shows that the defendant possessed a controlled substance in an amount inconsistent with personal use and possessed items associated with the delivery of a controlled substance such as . . . cash, or drug records." See, e.g., State v. Fulmer, 105 Or App 334, 336-37, 804 P2d 515 (1991).

Defendant appealed a judgment conviction for unlawful delivery of methamphetamine. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to acquit. On appeal, Defendant conceded he possessed seven "baggies" of methamphetamine, totaling 9.84 grams, at the time of his arrest, but Defendant argued the methamphetamine was for personal use and that the evidence on record was insufficient to support a conviction for unlawful delivery. In response, the State argued that the expert witness testimony, which established the amount of methamphetamine Defendant possessed was equivalent to 20 to 90 user amounts, was sufficient evidence to uphold Defendant's conviction. "[E]vidence is sufficient to support a conviction for delivery where it shows that the defendant possessed a controlled substance in an amount inconsistent with personal use and possessed items associated with the delivery of a controlled substance such as . . . cash, or drug records." See, e.g., State v. Fulmer, 105 Or App 334, 336-37, 804 P2d 515 (1991). The Court held that the packaging and quantity of the methamphetamine in Defendant’s possession was sufficient evidence for the fact finder to infer Defendant had the intent to deliver, and therefore the trial court did not err when it denied Defendant’s motion for acquittal.

Affirmed.